CBS: Intel office cut terror links from Rice briefing

Nov. 21, 2012
|

Amid the wrecked U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, a man examines documents on the day after the Sept. 11 attack that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. / Ibrahim Alaguri, AP

by Michael Winter, USA TODAY

by Michael Winter, USA TODAY

References to "al-Qaeda" and "terrorism" were deleted by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence from "talking points" given to Ambassador Susan Rice three days after the deadly Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, CBS News reports.

The al-Qaeda mentions were passed along by the CIA and cut because they were too "tenuous" to publicize, an intelligence source told CBS, citing a lack of confidence in the person providing the information. But, CBS writes, former CIA director David Petraeus "told Congress he agreed to release the information -- the reference to al-Qaeda -- in an early draft of the talking points, which were also distributed to select lawmakers."

The CIA then signed off on the "substantive edits," as did the FBI, which made additional edits as part of "standard procedure," according to the CBS source.

National Intelligence Director James Clapper, an Obama appointee, reviewed the talking points before they were passed along to Rice and the House Intelligence Committee on Sept. 14. CBS' source would not confirm who in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence was behind the edits.

A spokeswoman for House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., said the way the intelligence community's talking points were changed "gives a new explanation that differs significantly from information provided in testimony to the committee last week."

A senior U.S. official "familiar with the drafting of the talking points" told CBS News that the controversy over the word choice "has come as a surprise."

"The points were not, as has been insinuated by some, edited to minimize the role of extremists, diminish terrorist affiliations or play down that this was an attack," the official said, adding that there were "legitimate intelligence and legal issues to consider, as is almost always the case when explaining classified assessments publicly."